@kylix_is: "Having tried several notation packages over the years (I bought Encore
about seven or eight years ago, having then only tried a truly awful
program called Dr T). I am currently dabbling with the freebie Finale
NotePad 2004, which is impressive (since it's free), but I find it
very cumbersome inputting notes.
NotePad 2004 has no MIDI support, but I could upgrade to NotePad Plus
for around $25. However, I noticed that Scorewriter 2 is only about
twice the price for the downloadable version. So which is the better
buy, NotePad Plus giving me MIDI save and export for �25, or
Scorewriter 2, which I assume was not designed as a freebie entry
level system? Is the Scorewriter 2 product a lot better? I am looking
mainly for ease of inputting music. For example, I find the method of
entering different voices in Finale NotePad (layers in Finale-speak)
really tedious.
MM"
    @noone: "<quote>
I use Overture, from the publisher of Score Writer. Overture's step entry is 
clean and fast; I assume SW has about the same functionality. You can download a 
demo at <url> The new forum at that site is very active and 
helpful, and has a Score Writer-specific section.
John Rethorst
rmoore@example.org"
    @btgraham: "news:cj9nhp$864$<email_address>
<quote>
I can compare NoteWorthy Composer and Score Writer.
I used NWC for several years until I found Score Writer.
Score Writer only costs $49US to download compared to $39US for NWC but it
contains many more features.
Multi-measure rests, chord entry (transposable), drum mapping, rhythm
symbols, more articulations (not third party workarounds), auto part
transpose on extraction, MIDI tools, quantize and more.
It contains many of the features of the larger notation programs at a
fraction of the price.
Check out the demo at <url> and if you have any questions click
on the Forum tab at that site.
Not connected with Geniesoft - just a satisfied user.
-
Barry Graham
Top Brass Events Band
Melbourne, Australia
<url>"
    @noone: "<quote>
I like typography as well as music notation, and have spent entirely too much 
time comparing music fonts, mostly from demo versions of various programs. 
Overture and Score Writer's font is as nice as Adobe's Sonata (it was probably 
inspired by Sonata), and that's IMO as nice as it gets.
John Rethorst
rmoore@example.org"
    @btgraham: "news:<email_address>
Re: Score Writer
<quote>
It doesn't irritate me.
Why not check the demo and do a print out yourself.
Score Writer doesn't "officially" support Jazz Fonts but it's not hard to
do.
Contact me if you would like a one page JF sample as a PDF.
(by reply address NOT the web page in the sig).
-
Barry Graham
Top Brass Events Band
Melbourne, Australia
<url>"
    @Bernard: "<email_address> writes
<quote>
You might want to have a look at Music Publisher 5. <url>
The input method is either by note name (key A for note A etc) or 
scanning of existing printed music via the extra add-on module MP Scan 
2.
Price is �115 plus optionally �75 for MP Scan 2.
Evaluation copy does not expire and has almost full features, 2Mb 
download. If you want it without browsing the site it's at
<url>
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
<url>
Selkirk, Scotland"
    @dave: ""Mike Mitchell" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
....
And if  Bernard is plugging his excellent software, I'll plug my 
equally excellent (and slightly less expensive) software MOZART
�49.95 + VAT   from <url>
The free evaluation copy has absolutely full features and when it 
expires after a (very generous) month, only a couple of features 
disable (including save and play-back).
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - 
<url>
For discussion/support see 
<url>"
    @kylix_is: "On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:07:38 -0700, John Rethorst <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
Okay, I've now downloaded ScoreWriter 2 Demo and have been trying it
out for an hour. I must say that I am NOT impressed so far. It seems
even worse than Finale NotePad. It doesn't even allow me to save
during the Demo period! So all my experimentations that might lead to
a sale cannot be saved in between sesions! What a silly decision,
guys! At least allow some form of Save, even if it's restricted to,
say, 16 bars of music. By disabling Save, you're more likely to lose
customers rather than win new ones. As for the Step Input feature -
very poor. Why must I hit Enter each time I want to input a note?
Isn't typing the note name on the computer keyboard enough? Oh, and
the note doesn't sound! I have to select the pointer cursor to go back
over the notes to hear them sound.
Now I want to move the cursor caret from bar to bar using the computer
arrow keys. But a note head is highlighted in red - I must be in some
kind of edit mode; how do I break out of it? I suppose the help file
may tell me, but intuitive it ain't!
Anyway, I have spent FAR LONGER inputting (trying to) my test piece,
Caprice by Gottschalk, a simplied version. I was much further ahead by
now using Finale NotePad than with ScoreWriter 2. Of course, now I'm
about to close ScoreWriter 2 for the night, thus losing all my trial
work. At least with Finale NotePad I could save, then continue
tomorrow.
MM"
    @kylix_is: "On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:07:38 -0700, John Rethorst <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
I've just tried Mozart 7. Sorry! Don't like it. First, why are there
no rests? There are notes, but no rests. Ah, the help tells me I have
to press Shift+Spacebar for a rest; Spacebar for a note. Why? Why
can't I just click on the note to select it, click on the staff at the
desired pitch, and bingo? Editing a note's pitch: I click on the
notehead - so far, so good. And now I try to drag it up or down with
the mouse...? Nope! I must let go of the mouse and use Alt+an arrow
key. Also, the music looks "funny" - the beaming looks amateurish. And
when I click on notes I've input, they don't sound. Nope, far too
unintuitive for me, I'm afraid. So far, Finale NotePad wins, despite
its crappy layer management.
MM"
    @kylix_is: "On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:07:38 -0700, John Rethorst <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
I downloaded the Encore manual (PDF), a whopping 6 MB! The sw demo is
also massive, so I haven't downloaded that. I just wanted to browse
through the manual, which is very detailed, running to 351 pages. Is
this GVOX Encore good? Very good? When I said earlier I had bought a
copy of Encore years ago, I should have said MusicTime - it was by
Passport, I believe, in them thar days (yonks ago). But MT was, I seem
to recall, very intuitive. Back to Encore, and I can't see myself
buying it, though, as it is extremely expensive.
I just had another go with Finale NotePad, and the layers thing is
truly awful. The help is fairly mediocre, too. Why don't Finale
provide a download of their manual? What have they got to hide?!!
MM"
    @noone: "<quote>
Its user base seems to be very loyal. I looked at the demo some years ago and 
was impressed with the interface.
How hard their program is to use?
John Rethorst
rmoore@example.org"
    @dave: ""Mike Mitchell" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
MOZART was designed for rapid entry via the QWERTY keyboard.  The 
right hand fingers use the arrow keys to position the caret on the 
stave; the left use Z and X to adjust the length of the note which 
is about to be entered, and either thumb on the spaceber drops it on 
the stave (and shift+spacebar gives a rest as you have discovered). 
Many people who have mastered this find it the quickest entry system 
they have found.
Because MOZART was designed with (computer) keyboard input foemost 
in mind, as it is much quicker than all that mouse clicking.
The model was/is that of a word processor where clicking on the page 
moves the insertion point to where you click, and then you 
enter/edit symbols with the keyboard.  (You can also click on the 
appropriate toolbar to select a note of a given duration of course.)
You don't have to do it like that that if you don't want to.  Move 
the insertion point above or below a note and hit the enter key: the 
note will move to the pitch of the insertion point.
Again, as in a word processor, clicking with the mouse moves the 
insertion point: the keyboard enters the symbol.
Use of the keyboard has the advantage that it cuts out a lot of 
clicking, as there are more keys than the mouse has buttons. 
Spacebar enters a note, shift+spacebar a rest;  >  ^ . _  enter 
accents, stacato, and tenuto;  | enters an extra bar line (standard 
ones appear automatically when you complete a bar);    + sharpens a 
note; - flattens it; and so forth and so on.   The whole design was 
specifically to avoid having to select everything with the mouse, 
and thus speed up music entry.
In what way?   No-one has ever criticised it before in the 10 years 
(come 9 November) of  MOZART's existence.   But I'm always happy to 
try and improve it.
As I say, clicking on things moves the insertion point.    Play back 
is accomplished in various ways - eg F2 to play form the beginning 
or the > arrow on the playback toolbar to play from the inesertion 
point.
I'm sorry to hear that MOZART does not behave according to your 
intuition; there are others who find it very intuitive.  But I 
suppose that's the problem with intuition.  :-(
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - 
<url>
For discussion/support see 
<url>"
    @kylix_is: "On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:06:24 -0700, John Rethorst <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
Harder, because of the inaccessibility and immediacy of information on
how to use it. For example, I am used to pop-up tooltips in most
programs I use (and write). But in ScoreWriter 2 and in Finale
NotePad, the hint appears in the status bar at the bottom of the
screen, i.e. miles away from one's gaze when one is looking near the
top at the tool buttons. This alone is indicative of poor design. It's
like coming up to a road sign that says, "Next road sign contains
warning."
Someone else has mentioned the cartoon-like appearance of the Finale
NotePad interface, and yes, it is pretty childish-looking. But at
least it has buttons for notes, rests, and other functions. Also, the
Simple Note Entry and Simple Rest Entry tool bars can be torn off and
reshaped. I've turned mine from a long bar into a compact reactangle
of buttons that I can keep close to the bar I'm inputting.
Contrast that with ScoreWriter 2, and although you can separate the
Main Tool Bar (as it's known), you cannot reshape it - it remains a
long, unwieldy tool bar. In ScoreWriter 2 the designers must think
that they are doing good by hiding all the note and rest buttons
(which appear in Finale NotePad), but really they are just making the
interface more difficult to use, as first one has to click and hold
the note button, then the pull-down menu of note buttons appears. Then
you still have to hold the mouse down while dragging it to the actual
note duration you want.
I listened to David's defence of Mozart, but I just have to ask the
question (of all notation package writers), what would be the most
intuituive and the easiest method for inputting music into a computer?
I would say, like this: The screen clears, you click on a button to
display a blank sheet of manuscript 'paper', say a standard piano
stave with treble and bass clefs. However, there would be no clefs on
it yet, no time sig, no bar lines, no nothing. Just staves, staves and
more staves, as far as the eye could see. Pretty much like what you
see when you come back from the newsagents with a manuscript book
under your arm.
You have the lines on the screen, so you take your wireless stylus and
move it to the screen. You 'draw' a note, let's say, G. You don't have
to be very accurate or very good at drawing (most composers' scribbles
look absolutely atrocious, even though their music is fantastic), as
the computer kicks in and smartens up your note. It turns it into a
proper looking note, in fact. Note (!) that you haven't got the stem
drawn yet. You add the stem, up or down, or approximately up or down,
and once again the computer tidies it up for you. Purists at this
point might argue, YOU say you added a G, but how do you know, because
you haven't added a key signature yet! But who cares? Does a composer
writing down a snatch of a tune that is gone in an instant worry about
clefs and things? Anyway, humans can go back later and add these bits
in, so whay must the computer insist on knowing first what clefs we're
going to use, what the time sig will be, and so on? We are developing
notation programs using computer geekdom, not music geekdom, as
guidelines. Musicians are artists, and anything that smacks of
regimentation, like a computer program that insists on doing things
its way, is like an alien life form.
Anyway, back to my simple approach, and now it's time to enter your
second note! As before, you 'draw' it on the screen. If the two notes
are a couple of quavers (eighth notes for Americans), you might want
to draw a beam across the top. (David: check out the beaming in the
other packages I've mentioned and you'll see the difference.) So how
is the computer going to understand a pretty much horizontal line
drawn between two note stems? It's gotta be a beam, hasn't it? Okay,
maybe the computer doesn't guess right first time and draws a line
somewhere else instead: You then enter "educate" mode and train the
computer to recognise your little quirks, just as you have to train a
computer to recognise your voice in voice recognition programs.
All of this requires a touch sensitive screen of some kind, but I'm
not talking about whether the hardware is available right now, I'm
just thinking out loud as to what the simplest, most approachable
input method might be. Having got the bulk of the raw notes and rests
in, you might want to go back and add in a natural, sharp or flat.
That's after you do get to add the key sig. You enter the time sig and
bar (measure) lines appear. Some bars are highlighted, as the computer
has detected that you have a note too few or too many. But you're in
control, so you can say, stuff you, Mr Computer, *I'm* the composer,
just play the darned thing, will ya! Because you might have wanted to
place a particular note just there, but didn't decide which one yet,
so you left a gap. So what? What's a little gap, after all said and
done? I mean, you WILL go back and correct it at some point, won't
you? Hey, I just opened some of Erik Satie's music and it doesn't
appear to have any bar lines, fancy that!
The whole point of all this is that we humans always have to
accommodate ourselves to the whims of the computer program as designed
by computer geekdom, not music geekdom. Instead we demand our freedom
from all these time sig, key sig, bar lines, and other straitjackets -
they are just the guttering, the damp-proof course, the nicely turfed
garden. Our new house needs walls and a roof first, above all other
considerations. We can always bolt on the guttering later, we can call
up the garden centre and have turf delivered next week.
It. Doesn't. Matter. Right. Now!
Only when notation package designers start thinking like musicians and
not like computer programmers will their products really start to
become user-friendly and I'll stop feeling so crotchety.
MM"
    @dave: ""Mike Mitchell" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Thank you. :-)    I'll make some more comments - not because I don't 
appreciate your viewpoint - I do - but writing an intuitive program 
is very very difficult, and I feel I should give an idea of what 
goes through software designers' minds.
The problem is that "intuition" is a highly user-dependent thing. 
It would be lovely if it were not.   Microsoft have spent an awful 
lot of money on researching this, and came up with standard Windows 
user-interface guidelines.   There are immediately half a dozen 
criticisms to make, among which:
- like all their "standards" it has changed with time.
- some people don't like it.
-how do you apply it to music notation software.
But the general idea is that if you have used a number of windows 
programs, the next should become "intuitive".   Of course this means 
little to people who are experienced at using other systems.  (Eg 
there is nothing intuitive about the idea that Alt+F4 will exit the 
program, until you have found that it does on lots of others.)
However, love it or loathe it, the Microsoft guidelines is basically 
all there is for determing what is intuitive(in Windows).
With  little sheet of paper on it - or the menu item File/New
Ah - a two stave system.  Already you are biasing the program to 
pianists.  Your non-pianist users will not think this is intuitive.
[Which is why MOZART offers a selection of score templates before 
drawing the screen, rather than assuming anything.  And it remembers 
the template you used last time as the default.  In this way 
pianists and big band arrangers get equal treatment.]
So in fact nothing to indicate that you have a set of two-stave 
systems?
Whoaaaahh - there's no clef  but I see you have noted this 
below.
I assume you have to be accurate enough that the program knows it's 
a note, rather than somethng else?
Usually yes in my experience.
At this stage you computer knows there is a note of a certain line 
or space of the stave.   It knows nothing about its pitch or 
duration (as the stem may be a crotchet or a anything shorter which 
is going to have a beam added).  It's not yet a good basis for 
storing music.
I have looked at all sorts - and in particular lots of music from 
different publishers.
You're going to have fun writing this program :-)
Well I foresee a problem here.  If  Mr Computer doesn't understand 
how the note durations line up in different parts, would you imagine 
him saying "*You're* the composer, Mr Composer, play it yourself!" 
????  [Just a thought.  Not really suggesting it as a user-friendly 
interface.]
Music without bar lines is called "free time" and I fully admit that 
this is not one of MOZART's strong points.
I'm crying foul there:  I have been playing music for 40 years (and 
am of a generation that prefers the term "boffin" to "geek") and 
those of us who write these programs (I am sure I speak for Bernard 
too) got involved in it just because of our interset in music and 
not because of some odd desire to spend our lives debugging computer 
programs.   (I don't know about the authors of Finale though.)
Actually this has in fact always been the primary concern of MOZART. 
To give just one example: to free you from having to count the beats 
in every bar, by doing it for you, and putting the bar lines in 
automatically where they belong.    But for it to help you like that 
you have to make a pact with it.   When you enter in 3/4 at the 
beginning of the music, *you* are ordering 3 crotchets worth in 
every bar.  When the garden centre delivers that, you can tell them 
you wanted something different, but it will usually cost you at 
least another delivery charge (in this case the overhead of entering 
another key signature in bar 2).
If you make the pact, and adhere to your side of the bargain, MOZART 
takes an awful lot of the work from you - the part which computers 
*can* do - letting *you* concentrate on being creative.   If you 
want a program to allow you to change your mind all the time without 
informing it, then it will start pestering you a lot about your 
intentions (making MOZART's "there isn't room in the bar for the 
note you are trying to put there" look like dumb compliance). 
Otherwise you may as well write your music with a graphics program 
(which knows nothing of music syntax) and have done with it.
As I said, many of us do.  I have played most of the single reeds 
and recorders in my time and currently play in 3 different bands.  I 
adapted my computing skills very specifically to what was needed to 
write music software.   And I started writing MOZART originally (in 
the mid 80s)  exactly because arranging for bands was requiring too 
much tippex and too much time to write parts neatly.
So please feel free to feel less crotchety, and breve easily.  :-)
But we have to think like musicians who are writing music very 
precisely, as the computer program has to know what you intend (if 
it is to help you at all) and computers are fairly well known to be 
very literal minded.
And then consider this:  if the interface you suggested were 
feasible, then getting a music OCR program to scan your hand written 
score and recognise the notes would be absolute child's play by 
comparison.   There are a number of OCR programs around and every 
one which I have tried has difficulty getting a 100% record on 
neatly printed music.  This is not because their authors are stupid: 
far from it.  It is a *very* difficult problem.
Just a music software author's 2d.
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - 
<url>
For discussion/support see 
<url>"
    @ToppSpin: "On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:31:14 +0100, Mike Mitchell
<quote>
I bought Finale Guitar. I have downloaded 3-4 others and tested them
somewhat. In my opinion, Mozart has far and away the best UI. Like any
non-trivial program, there is a learning curve. But it is a fraction
of that for Finale.
No program is perfect and certainly nor perfect for everyone. David
has made an amazing number of correct calls in my opinion. I am not a
professional musician and I cannot say how well it handles very
complex music (orchestral scores), but for me it is incredibly
intuitive.
David really has a little gem here. I just wish he would create a
newsgroup for discussions like these rather than the awkward and
isolated support forum he has. ;-)
For email, use rmoore@example.org"
    @dave: ""Top Spin" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Thank you - that's a nice endoresment from a non-customer :-)
 >....I just wish he would create a
I hadn't forgotten your comment about preferring newsgroups to 
mailing lists for this.   I hadn't done much about it either, but 
general comments like this do have a habit of burying themselves 
somewhere in my subconscious and coming out at some appropriate 
moment in the future.  :-)
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - 
<url>
For discussion/support see 
<url>"
    @ToppSpin: "On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:40:47 +0100, "David Webber"
<quote>
Huh?
Just taking the opportunity to remind you... ;-)
For email, use rmoore@example.org"
    @dave: ""Top Spin" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Sorry I thought you said you'd tried MOZART but bought Finale 
Guitar.  I thought I had narrowly missed a customer.  Did I 
misunderstand?  If you have bought MOZART my very sincerest 
apologies!   [I did notice your valuable contributions to the 
mailing list chat/support forum earlier this month, but I wouldn't 
have known if you had actually bought MOZART (a) because I outsource 
the sales and shipping department and (b) because I don't know you 
by anything other than your internet nom-de-guerre.]
Fair enough :-)
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - 
<url>
For discussion/support see 
<url>"
    @ToppSpin: "On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:04:34 +0100, "David Webber"
<quote>
I bought Guitar over a year ago and have been trying for a year to
figure it out. I bought Mozart a couple of weeks ago after using the
trial version for about 2 weeks. I am more productive in Mozart after
using it intermittently for a couple of weeks on only one piece than I
was with Guitar after a year of periodic use and 8-10 pieces  many
of which I never did get to look right.
Apology accepted. ;-)
OK. Now get going on that NG! ;-)
I'm just back from vacation and backed up with real work, but I'll be
back on Mozart as soon as I can.
For email, use rmoore@example.org"
    @btgraham: "news:cjht12$t1i$1$<email_address>
David - I always enjoy you contributions here.
It's interesting that the lower priced packages are almost all one man
shows.
Mozart - NoteWorthy Composer - Score Writer  and Bernard Hill's program
(whose name escapes me - and I'm sure he will remind me).
It never ceases to amaze me how responsive you guys are to requests and
features and you're not scared to put your views on the line in a public
forum.
It says something when you take the time to check out the newsgroups and
contribute to the discussion when the dogs are snapping at your heels.
More power to all of you !
-
Barry Graham
Top Brass Events Band
Melbourne, Australia
<url>"
    @noone: "wrote:
<quote>
Just IMO, but they're also often better ones.
John Rethorst
rmoore@example.org"
    @noone: "<quote>
This saves a lot of room on the screen, though.
If Score Writer is like Overture, you can click on the tool to select it. Then, 
click anywhere in the score that will accept that symbol and it's entered. No 
dragging needed.
John Rethorst
rmoore@example.org"
    @dave: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Thank you :-)
I am very glad you are finding it productive!
I have started some enquiries to find out how it might be done, but
I have to admit that this is mainly because it annoys me when I have
absolutely no idea how to do something which someone asks for, and
is very much a "feasibility" study.   I have to warn you not to
expect it any time soon :-(
Meanwhile if you can continue on the Yahoo Group mailing list,  we 
have some fairly productive discussions there (and, as one member 
noted, membership topped that of the Finale Yahoo Group sometime 
last month).
Good luck.
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
<url>
For discussion/support see
<url>"
    @kylix_is: "On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:29:37 -0700, John Rethorst <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
I have since found, purely by accident, that you can pull the Notes
submenu (containing the notes and rests) off the main toolbar and turn
them into their own free-floating mini toolbar which you can
reposition like you can in Finale NotePad. You can then even reshape
this mini toolbar and turn it into a rectangle, also like in FNP. The
moment I found this out, ScoreWriter 2 started looking more
attractive. But look at the inconsistency in the design here: Whereas
you *can* construct your own mini toolbar containing the notes and can
reshape it, you *can't* reshape the Main Tool Bar! I've found that you
can pull nearly all of the tool buttons off the Main Tool Bar to form
little toolbars of their own, and reshape every one! But not the Main
Tool Bar, not the Transport, not the Standard Tool Bar.
MM"
    @dave: ""Barry Graham" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:415cc419$<email_address>
<quote>
Thank you :-)
Based on my own experience, I think the reasons are:
    (1) we don't have big company overheads
    (2) we are passionate about the subject
    (3) we are working for ourselves and thus motivated to work hard
I made a decision that I wanted to retain my 100% hands on technical 
control, as that is what I do best.  Therefore when I needed help, 
rather than taking on staff and becoming a manager of programmers 
less motivated than I am, I decided to outsource the sales, 
marketing, and production.  It gives me more time for technical 
developments.
Well I think reason (2) above means that we'd be here anyway.   And 
if you want to compete with the big boys, it helps to take advantage 
of the areas where you have an advantage.  They have the big 
marketing budgets: we have more business flexibility if you will, 
and the personal passion for the subject which motivates direct 
interaction with people.
And I think we are fortunate in our subject matter:  I have found 
that musicians are pretty much universally pleasant, understanding, 
people.   I have a theory which starts with the idea that if you 
want to play music with people, then you have to develop an empathy 
with the people you're playing with, or you don't stand a chance of 
making good music.   Therefore musicians are predisposed to 
relationships based on mutual understanding.  (There are probably 
lots of prominent counterexamples <g> but nonetheless it is my 
experience and I'm sticking to it.)   So I state my views in a 
forthright manner 9but with no animosity), and let those of others 
gradually sink into my slow brain until the best ones come out the 
other side, and have me thinking it was all my own idea in the first 
place :-)
Dogs? Heels?  Now, now.  :-)     The ocassionally overexcited puppy 
perhaps <vbg>.
 > More power to all of you !
Good idea!    Even (well a little bit) to my archrival Bernard. 
:-)
Dave
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - 
<url>
For discussion/support see 
<url>"
    @ToppSpin: "On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:20:57 +0100, "David Webber"
<quote>
No, thank you for the excellent product. I consider it a bargain.
A bit better than that.
Of course.
I will, of course. What choice do I have! ;-) The Yahoo group is
certainly useful. It's just that there are so many tools for
newsgroups that are far superior for managing group discussions.
Plus, you will get a wider exposure to your excellent product. Who
knows, you might even put Finale out of business. ;-)
For email, use rmoore@example.org"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 25, "forum_name": "rec.music.compose.20140730.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-rec.music.parquet'}